Nation of Blue

Football

Report: Pac-12 Officials May Actually Be Corrupt

Posted on

Remember a few weeks ago when Washington State’s quarterback was hammered by a USC defender but targeting was not called?

In the same game, a Washington State defender nailed USC’s quarterback. It also appeared to be the exact definition of targeting.

It turns out that everyone in the world agreed that it was targeting, but some third party official in the Pac-12 office overruled the call.

Yahoo! Sports has unearthed documentation that proves there’s something sketchy happening with Pac-12 officials.

Here is an excerpt of the Yahoo! Sports exclusive:




It was a clear enough call that both the in-stadium replay officials and the replay officials in the Pac-12’s command center in San Francisco ruled the play as a targeting penalty, according to an internal replay report obtained by Yahoo Sports. This call would have ejected Tago from the game. An independent veteran official who viewed the play also told Yahoo Sports it was “clear targeting.”

Targeting wasn’t called and Tago stayed in the game. The replay report obtained by Yahoo Sports states that “unfortunately a third party did not agree” with the call. That “third party” was Pac-12 general counsel and senior vice president of business affairs Woodie Dixon, Yahoo Sports sources have confirmed.

Dixon oversees football for the conference but is not a formally trained official. Dixon telephoned in his opinion that the play wasn’t targeting, sources said. According to the report, his opinion overruled both the trained officials in the stadium replay booth and in the league’s command center.

The internal report was written by Gary McNanna, the replay official in the booth that night. His word choice indicates he was irked. (McNanna did not return calls from Yahoo Sports seeking comment.) The targeting call was obvious enough that ESPN analyst Greg McElroy used the word “shocked” once and some form of the word “surprise” three times when Tago didn’t get ejected. According to the document: “Both the replay booth and the command center agreed this was a targeting foul, but unfortunately a third party did not agree so the targeting was removed and we went with the ruling on the field of [roughing the passer] with no targeting. This didn’t play well on TV. Reversed my stoppage for [targeting] to not [targeting].”

The box labeled “Grader Comments” two slots over reads: “Correctly Handled.”

Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott issued a statement to Yahoo Sports denying there was a “third party” involved, as Dixon is typically in the command center and part of the replay collaboration team, in part because he has a full understanding of targeting. “Our instant replay supervisor [Bill Richardson] is the ultimate decision maker,” Scott said. “The misperception that in this case, the ultimate decision from the command center was made by someone other than the instant replay supervisor is a concern.”

According to officiating experts and college sports officials, the documented “third party” interference undermines both the Pac-12 officiating credibility and rhetoric surrounding player safety that’s tied to the focus on targeting.

The “third party” interference sparked outrage in the officiating world, where a buzz quickly spread about the incident.

“It’s unheard of,” said Terry McAulay, the rules analyst for NBC who spent 10 years as a coordinator of officials for the Big East and AAC. “I was appalled when I heard. The autonomy of officiating needs to be absolute. When there’s pressure from the outside brought to bear, it threatens the integrity of the game.”

Complete Article

Here is a second controversial play from the USC/Washington State game that didn’t result in targeting:

You’ll likely remember that it was a Pac-12 officiating crew that ejected Benny Snell in last season’s Music City Bowl.

Related Items:, , ,
To Top